2015 (3) TMI 1070 - AT - Customs

Denial of re-credit of DEPB Licences - appellant did not apply for re-export of rejected goods to Commissioner Customs as per CBEC Circular No. 75/2000 dt 11/9/2000 and secondly due to the fact that the identify of the re-exported goods was not specifically certified to be established by the Customs Officers - Held that - Once a permission has been granted by the DC Mundra it can not be said that appellant should have applied to the Commissioner for necessary permission. If DC was not the proper officer to allow re-export then he could have put up the file to Commissioner Customs for appropriate orders - The DEPB import licences used for the original clearance are also made available. All there documents were made available to the Revenue at the time of re-export of the goods. After seeing all these documents examination order written is Examination carried out under Supervision of AC (DE) of Superintendent (DE) in the person of CHA REP . Non mention of a specific noting that identity established can not be made as the grounds that identify of the goods was not established. Rather non-mentioning of any comment on identity of goods established has to be inferred in favor of the appellant in view of the clear intention/request as made in their letter dt 17/5/2012 and it has to be held that identity of the goods was established. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of re-credit of DEPB license - Non-application for necessary permission to Commissioner Customs - Identity of re-exported goods not established.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of re-credit of DEPB license by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The main contentions revolved around the appellant's failure to apply for necessary permission to the Commissioner Customs as required by Circular No. 75/2000 and the lack of establishment of the identity of the re-exported goods. The appellant imported 'Butadiene Rubber' powder and sought re-credit of DEPB Certificate due to unsuitability for consumption. The appellant's argument emphasized that the re-export permission was granted by DC, Mundra, and no objection was raised regarding the identity of the goods at the time of export. The appellant provided relevant documents such as import invoices, packing lists, and shipping bills to support their case. The appellant contended that not raising any objection during export implied the establishment of the goods' identity. The appellant's advocate highlighted the compliance with Circular No. 75/2000 and asserted the legal entitlement to re-credit of DEPB Scripts.

The Revenue, represented by Sh. J. Nagori, argued that the appellant should have applied to the Commissioner for permission to re-export the rejected imported goods. It was further contended that without a specific report confirming the identity of the goods at the time of re-export, no DEPB re-credit could be allowed in the licenses. The Revenue's stance focused on procedural requirements and the necessity of establishing the identity of the re-exported goods.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted that the re-credit of DEPB Licenses was rejected based on two grounds. Firstly, the appellant's failure to apply for re-export of rejected goods to the Commissioner Customs as per Circular No. 75/2000, and secondly, the absence of specific certification regarding the establishment of the identity of the re-exported goods by Customs Officers. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had indeed written to DC, Custom, Mundra regarding re-export as per the circular, and specific requests were made for re-export and re-credit certificates for DEPB License. The documents provided, including the letter, shipping bill, invoices, and packing lists, contained details of imports and were available to the department during the examination of re-exported goods. The Tribunal inferred that the identity of the goods was established based on the appellant's clear intention and requests in the provided documents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs granted to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing compliance with circular requirements and the provision of necessary documentation to establish the identity of the re-exported goods, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the grant of consequential reliefs.